E.D. Kain reviews Pocohontas Avatar; and Kottke makes a similar point:
[T]he Na'vi have regular and intimate access to a moon-sized supercomputer — a neural net supercomputer at that — that connects them to every other living thing on their world and have had such access for what could be millennia. It just doesn't add up. The Na'vi are too capable and live in an environment that is far too pregnant with technological possibility to be stuck in the Stone Age. Plot-wise it's convenient for them to be the way they are, but the Na'vi really should have been more technologically advanced than the Earthlings, not only capable of easily repelling any attack from Captain Ironpants but able to keep the mining company from landing on the moon in the first place.
Friedersdorf doesn't buy the noble savages criticism:
James Cameron isn’t portraying native people of our world. His alien protagonists aren’t intended as stand-ins for the Navajos or the Aztecs or the Cherokee. In his different world, the native people really are in communion with nature. Were his purpose to comment on European history, this would be a terrible choice, but in fact Avatar is a film whose purpose is allowing humanity to reflect on its circumstances and fallen nature in a novel way. That is why I approve of the decision to portray the kinds of natives that were shown.
Conor really has been on a roll lately. The role of conservative contrarian suits him. I revered the movie visually and found the writing and story somewhat lame. But the Brooks-Podhoretz critique leaves me cold for all the reasons Conor cites. Or I really am becoming a goddamn hippie after all these years. (I'm seeing it again next week at an Imax.)
(Hat tip: URLesque)
The Dish 